Privacy (or the lack thereof) on mailing lists

This document is the record of a discussion that took place on the nasw-talk mailing list from June 25th through July 4th, 1997. It deals with the issue of the privacy and permanence of Internet-based discussions.

Information on joining or participating in the nasw-talk mailing list can be found here.

RELATED LINKS

• Subscribe to an NASW list
• Manage your subscriptions
• NASW email list policies and procedures

Message From: "Joel N. Shurkin" 
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:46:48 -0700
Subject: A cautionary tale

Gang:

Gather around, one and all, I have a terrible tale to tell. Those of you
collecting embarrassing moments on the Internet, please take note. There is
a lesson in all of this. I will grind my teeth thinking about it for a very
long time.
   Yesterday I received a blistering email note from someone I can now
describe as a former friend. It seems that during the course of a
conversation on this listserv I said something about him he found highly
offensive. He is not a member of NASW and doesn't subscribe to this list.
Because he is prominent in his profession, he uses a search engine
regularly to find references to his name on the Internet and came across my
message. I won't further identify the incident and I can say honestly I had
no idea the subject was as sensitive to him as it apparently was. I also
had no reason to think he'd see it, which is absolutely no excuse at all.
His perception of offense is sufficient. I apologized profusely, but I
think I lost a friend.
   The lesson, besides putting your brain in gear before opening your mouth?
   Many of you probably know this, but I didn't and should have. I write
about this technology all the time but I never got to this part. Every
message on this and every listserv is public. I thought, erroneously, that
this was private at least to those who subscribe. Not so. As Bob will tell
you in another message later, every message becomes a page of its own and
is eventually indexed by search engines. I searched for my name on InfoSeek
after I got his message. Ifound 320 references, most of them messages I
sent on this and another listserv I participate in. So posting a message
here is about as private as using a megaphone in an elavator.
    What have I learned from this most painful lesson?
    One--I will generally shut up or modify my tone.

    [I will wait for the applause to die down before continuing.]
    Thank you

    Two--I will remember that every message is subject to search and
nothing is private. You should too.
    Three--I'll cherish the few friends I haven't yet offended. You should too.
    In the words of Michael K, AAAARRRGHH!!!!!
j

Joel N. Shurkin
500 Jupiter Terrace,
Santa Cruz, California 95065

Phone: 408-438-3877
Fax: 408-438-4848
email: joel@nasw.org
http://web.wwnorton.com/engines.htm

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Roger Johnson 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:41:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

That was a gutsy and heartfelt message, Joel.  Thanks.  I had a similar
experience, but I merely described an incident and used no names. It was a
mistake that hurt me professionally, becasue someone on the listserve
recognized the situation (it actually could have been a number of people,
since it described an attitude toward the Internet) and passed it to the
person who held it against me, and apparently does to this day.  I also
apologized.

Your point is well taken.  These conversations are very public.

Roger

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:45:33 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Joel, I'm quite sympathetic to your tale of woe. A few specific comments:

1. Everyone should be aware that participation in NASW's three main nasw-x
mailing lists -- nasw-talk, nasw-freelance, and nasw-pr -- is not
restricted to NASW members. Anyone in the world may subscribe to the lists
and participate in the discussion.

2. From their first day of operation we have preserved all list messages on
a web-based hypermail archive at . Each of these
messages is a web page of its own, with a unique URL. Like virtually all
web pages, they are periodically indexed by the various search engines,
such as Alta Vista, Hotbot, and Lycos.

3. I will have to check with Tim Torgenrud (our network admin at Stanford)
about this, but I believe there's an HTML code that can be added to the top
of a web page that is supposed to prevent search engines from indexing the
page. Actually, as I recall, this code is more of a request that indexers
leave it alone. The people who program the search engines can choose to go
along with the request or not, and I believe that some search engines have
chosen to ignore these requests.

4. Adding this HTML code to the existing 3,000+ messages may be a pain, and
it may also be pointless, since these pages are already indexed, and since
some indexers will ignore the request.

5. On the other hand, it may be worth the attempt. If you've ever searched
for your own name on Alta Vista (for example), as I have, you'll find that
many, many of the things that turn up will be nasw-talk messages. I
personally wish that anyone searching for my name would find my own web
page first, and the NASW page second, but instead they find dozens of
nasw-talk messages. 

6. As most of you know, even regular email is like a postcard. It's
trivially easy for other people to read your mail, unless you encrypt it,
and it's even easier for an intended recipient to copy your private note to
500 of his closest friends. Even if we eliminated the hypermail archive
altogether (a suggestion I'd argue against strenuously), mail to a listserv
goes immediately to several hundred subscribers all over the world, and I
think it's unreasonable to expect any kind of privacy in that situation.
The nasw-x mailing lists, like virtually all mailing lists, are public
forums, and should be regarded as such.

7. Having said that, I certainly hope Joel chooses not to "generally shut
up or modify [his] tone." I think that his prolific and stimulating
contributions to the NASW mailing lists are one of the main reasons for the
lists' success.

What do other list members think about all of this? Should I do what I can
(which may not be much) to prevent nasw-x messages from being indexed by
the search engines, or do others see positive value in this indexing? Is
there support for taking the more drastic step of eliminating the hypermail
archives? 


- --
Bob Finn
cybrarian@nasw.org
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: "Joel N. Shurkin" 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:14:05 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

I would, for obvious reasons, vote to not have our messages indexed. I
understand that the listserv is open to anyone wishing to subscribe, but
the fact that anyone using an engine can find them, does bother me. I don't
understand why they must be archived that way? Why not just as text?

j

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: "GENE E. CHARLETON" 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:23:09 CST6CDT
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

> From:           Bob Finn 
> Subject:        Re: A cautionary tale

> . . .Even if we eliminated the hypermail archives entirely, a 
> suggestion I'd argue against strenuously), mail to a listserv 
> goes immediately to several hundred subscribers all over the world, 
> and I think it's unreasonable to expect any kind of privacy in that 
> situation. The nasw-x mailing lists, like virtually all mailing 
> lists, are public forums, and should be regarded as such.

> 7. Having said that, I certainly hope Joel chooses not to 
> "generally shut up or modify [his] tone." I think that his prolific 
> and stimulating contributions to the NASW mailing lists are one of 
> the main reasons for the lists' success.

I, for one, agree with Bob's thoughts on this incident.  The 
occasional unfortunate incident, like the one Joel recounted, 
shouldn't make us all run for cybercover _or_ self-censor our 
discussions. The public nature of this forum is one of the things 
that makes it useful outside our own community.

And I also would miss Joel's contributions.  Don't jump!

- ----------------------------------------------------------
Gene Charleton                      Science/Medical Writer
Texas A&M University        Office of University Relations
e-charleton@tamu.edu                        (409) 845-4644
charleton@nasw.org                          (409) 845-6237
 "Even Peter Pan had to grow up, but I'm fighting it every 
step of the way."
- ----------------------------------------------------------
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Norman Bauman 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:10:38
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Yes, I found out when I searched for my *own* name that my listserv
messages are archived forever. 

I was concerned about libel. Certainly any lawyer who sues a journalist for
libel these days will search that journalist's internet messages. Comments
outside the story can be used to establish malice, etc.  That's why I
usually don't discuss ongoing stories in this conference. 

I didn't realize however, until Joel mentioned it, that *any* time you use
someone's name, there is a good chance that person will find it in a search. 

That's a good argument for going online anonymously. 

- -------------------------
 Norman Bauman		|
 411 W. 54 St. Apt. 2D	|
 New York, NY 10019 	|
 212) 977-3223		|
- -------------------------
**************************************************************************

Message From: gstrobel@warren.med.harvard.edu
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:43:22 -0400
Subject: Re[2]: A cautionary tale

Bob, I for one would appreciate if you could try to keep our messages from being
indexed. Following Joel's experience (ouch!!), I searched for my name and I,
too, found several messages listed. I think hits like this are useless to most
people, because they take out of context a single message that was part of a
conversation. From what the search engine dredged up on me, you could not tell
why I was saying what I was saying.

What IS the hypermail archive useful for, beyond being able to refer frequently
asked questions to it?

I would be a pity if conversations on this listserv lost their spontaneity
because everyone is leery about who else is listening in.

Joel, my heart goes out to you. Please don't shut up or change your tone. Your
voice is one of the liveliest and funniest in this forum.  How about using
phantasy names if you feel the urge to rant about someone? I can't believe what
you said was so bad that someone with even a rudimentary sense of humor can't
get over it.

Gabrielle Strobel
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:54:34 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

At 09:14 AM 6/26/97 -0700, Joel N. Shurkin wrote:
>I would, for obvious reasons, vote to not have our messages indexed. I
>understand that the listserv is open to anyone wishing to subscribe, but
>the fact that anyone using an engine can find them, does bother me. I don't
>understand why they must be archived that way? Why not just as text?
>

I just spoke to Tim Torgenrud, and apparently it's futile to try to prevent
search engines from indexing the hypermail archive. 

The proper way to do it is to include a file called robots.txt in a top
level directory. This file contains a list of subdirectories that the
search engines' robots are not supposed to visit. Sounds great, but Tim
tells me that at least 85% of the search engines ignore the robots.txt file.

Nor would Joel's suggestion work. Even if we saved nasw-x messages as "just
text," as long as we kept that text on the web, the search engines would
find it and would index every word. 

As far as I can tell, the only things that would prevent the search engines
from indexing the nasw-x archives are:

1. eliminate the archives entirely, or

2. put them in a password protected area, accessible only to NASW members
who have obtained a username and password.

I'm strongly opposed to the first solution, and I don't like the second one
much either.
- --
Bob Finn
cybrarian@nasw.org
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:02:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Re[2]: A cautionary tale

At 12:43 PM 6/26/97 -0400, gstrobel@warren.med.harvard.edu wrote:
>What IS the hypermail archive useful for, beyond being able to refer
frequently
>asked questions to it?
>

I think the hypermail archive is extremely useful. I see it as a yearlong
(so far), seminar in science writing. Imagine how valuable it is to someone
considering a career in science writing, or to someone just starting out in
that career?

Additionally, we do occasionally say things here that might be of use to
the wider world. Just to take a recent example, suppose you were a gardener
who was about to spread some bone meal on your zucchini. An Alta Vista
search for "bone meal" would (probably not quite yet, but soon) turn up
today's sober and even-handed discussion about whether prions might be
spread by that means. 

- --
Bob Finn
cybrarian@nasw.org
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Richard Harris 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:04:28 -0400
Subject: RE: nasw-talk V2 #146

To answer a question about the NASW board's discussions of the roster: We 
entertained a suggestion that the roster shouldn't be printed every year. As I 
recall the discussion, there was general agreement that it's still useful and 
should be sent out periodically. Because addresses and phone numbers change 
more often, we discarded the idea of waiting 18 months or two years between 
directories.

I think it would be an administrative nightmare for Diane to keep a list of who 
does or does not want a directory. And I agree with Larry that the marginal 
savings are likely to be modest.

I, too, send my condolences to Joel. Of course we shouldn't say anything in 
this public forum we expect to remain confidential. But if you're tempted, at 
least misspell the guy's name so his search engine won't find it!

Richyrd Harrus
NASW Prez
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Jeff Foust 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:28:12 -0400
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

>The proper way to do it is to include a file called robots.txt in a top
>level directory. This file contains a list of subdirectories that the
>search engines' robots are not supposed to visit. Sounds great, but Tim
>tells me that at least 85% of the search engines ignore the robots.txt file.

His information appears to be out of date.  Of the seven "major" search
engines (AltaVista, Excite, HotBot, Infoseek, Lycos, Open Text, and
Web Crawler), all support the robots.txt file for delimiting files
and/or directories which are off-limits to the search engines.  Some
also support the use of  tags in the headers of document to keep
them from being indexed, but it's a lot easier to set up a robots.txt
and will cover more engines.

More information, updated frequently, is online at
http://www.searchenginewatch.com/features.htm .


Jeff Foust
Editor, SpaceViews -- http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/
jfoust@mit.edu


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Jeff Hecht 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:28:10 -0400
Subject: Do we need a private forum

Joel's story brings up something that I've been thinking about for a while:
Should we have a private forum for "professional issues" that is not
indexed, open to the public on the web server, and strictly limited to NASW
members?

What sort of professional issues? For those of us who free-lance, a
continuing concern is viability of book and magazine publishers, payment
times, etc. If you free-lance and somebody hasn't stiffed you, it's just a
matter of time. Suppose you called up SENSATIONAL SCIENCE STORIES to ask
why you hadn't been paid in 90 days and found the number didn't work any
more. The quickest way to broadcast that worrisome news would be on
nasw-freelance, but you don't necessarily want that message indexed for the
universe at large to access. Or suppose you'd heard rumors that a publisher
was filing for bankruptcy or was being sold? Or wanted to check out some
unknown person who contacted you?

I think there's a role for this, but I don't know how to do it. What do you
think?
- -- Jeff Hecht


**************************************************************************


------------------------------

Message From: Kathleen Carr 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:46:56 -0400
Subject: Private email

I created a mailing list of workshop attendees for George Johnson's
workshop last June.  Just did an HTML document with mailto's from which
you could email either an individual or the entire group of 44.  This
was privately distributed, though George did put it up on his web site
for this year's workshop.

If someone wanted to create a private list, they could ask for potential
participants and do up a document with those people's email.  Even if
the page were posted publicly, all the email would remain private to
that list.


- -K.

- -- 
Kathleen Carr
Freelance Science Writer
http://nasw.org/users/kcarr
- ------------------------------------
That which you are seeking is causing you to seek.
**************************************************************************


------------------------------

Message From: Henry Lansford 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:56:31 -0600
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Bob wrote:

>As far as I can tell, the only things that would prevent the search engines
>from indexing the nasw-x archives are:
>
>1. eliminate the archives entirely, or
>
>2. put them in a password protected area, accessible only to NASW members
>who have obtained a username and password.

I favor the second approach. I discovered soon after I started posting to
nasw-talk that the search engines turn up all that stuff that, as somebody
pointed out, often doesn't make much sense out of context. This doesn't
bother me a whole lot, but since then I have been careful not to mention
certain things, such as the names of third parties who are not
participating in the discussion.

Henry

**********
Henry Lansford (hlansford@nasw.org)
Writing and Consulting
4430 Ludlow Street
Boulder, Colorado 80303
303-499-0035


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Richard Robinson 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:18:23 -0700
Subject: archive forever? how about for a month or two?

What is the phrase, "Speak in haste, repent in leisure"? Seems we don't
have to repent for that long, if the archivist simply took down old
postings after a month or two or three. Anyone searching would then get
a "File not found" message after clicking the search engine record.
While our prose is good, it needn't be deathless.

Richard Robinson
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Larry Krumenaker 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:20:39 +0000
Subject: A cautionary tale

Gosh, Joel, didn't you read my message a couple of weeks ago on Search
Engines?  Alta Vista, HotBot and InfoSeek really go to town on us  (I've
posted the message on my Hermograph Web site, under the "Musings" link).  It
is the most significant source of people finding me, too, and even my
Hermograph Press, mostly from my signature in my NASW-x postings.

Perhaps, Bob Finn, there's a way to see if the hypermail archives get a
significant amount of actual hits.  If they really aren't being used,
perhaps we should simply eliminate them, or turn them into a database that
can be searched but not "spidered."

Larry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Publisher, Hermograph Press
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hermograph
hermograph@compuserve.com

Editor of "Net.Journal Directory"--The Catalog of 
    Full Text Periodicals  Archived on the Web
Links to *Free* Periodical Archives on our Site!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: gstrobel@warren.med.harvard.edu
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:16:04 -0400
Subject: Re[4]: A cautionary tale

I wrote:

>What IS the hypermail archive useful for, beyond being able to refer
frequently
>asked questions to it?
>

and Bob replied: 

^I think the hypermail archive is extremely useful. I see it as a yearlong
^(so far), seminar in science writing. Imagine how valuable it is to someone
^considering a career in science writing, or to someone just starting out in
^that career?

^Additionally, we do occasionally say things here that might be of use to
^the wider world. Just to take a recent example, suppose you were a gardener
^who was about to spread some bone meal on your zucchini. An Alta Vista
^search for "bone meal" would (probably not quite yet, but soon) turn up
^today's sober and even-handed discussion about whether prions might be
^spread by that means. 



Maybe I am alone in this, but I am still not convinced. 

Granted, science writing novices may find useful information about the business
in the archive. But they can find much of that elsewhere in a more organized
form, e.g. the Field Guide on Science Writing. Is is practicable to archive only
certain threads, namely those pertaining to certain "professional" topics, such
as how to break into the business, fees, contracts, payment times, internships,
the role of hack vs. flack, but not archive others?

I fail to see the importance of the argument about how useful some of our
conversations might be to the wider world. Yes, a gardener might come across the
discussion on bone meal, but would he not be able to get the same advice through
other, and less circuitous routes?

Gabrielle
**************************************************************************


------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:41:23 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

At 06:20 PM 6/26/97 +0000, Larry Krumenaker wrote:
>Perhaps, Bob Finn, there's a way to see if the hypermail archives get a
>significant amount of actual hits.  If they really aren't being used,
>perhaps we should simply eliminate them, or turn them into a database that
>can be searched but not "spidered."
>

In the year since the NASW web site was established, the hypermail archives
have been hit exactly 123,700 times. During the last seven days, the
archives have been hit an average of 523 times per day. From June 96
through April 97 the monthly number of hits to the hypermail archives grew
exponentially (I haven't done a mathematical analysis, but the graph sure
looks exponential), peaking at 29,152 hits during April, although for some
reason there was a decline in hits during May 97 and June 97 (an incomplete
month).
- --
Bob Finn
cybrarian@nasw.org
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Stephen Hart 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:18:06 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

>every message becomes a page of its own
>j

Sorry about your bad experience, Joel.

I, too, have noticed the dozens of hits search engines find that are merely
messages posted to this list. Why? It seems like a seriously flawed scheme
to turn every message into a page. It does facilitate searching, but surely
there must be a better way to store old messages. Furthermore, if we want
the list private, Number One can make it so.

I can't believe there's enough need for old message contents to justify
creating thousands of web pages to further clutter the on-line world.

>Three--I'll cherish the few friends I haven't yet offended. You should too.

Excellent advice--even without a disaster.

Bob Finn asked:
>Should I do what I can (which may not be much) to prevent nasw-x messages
>from being indexed by
>the search engines. . .

Definitely.

>Is there support for taking the more drastic step of eliminating the
>hypermail archives?

I suggest we think of a different way to keep these archives, and perhaps
think about password protecting them.

Steve

**************************************************************************

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message From: Stephen Hart 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:12:43 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

>6. As most of you know, even regular email is like a postcard. It's
>trivially easy for other people to read your mail, unless you encrypt it,
>and it's even easier for an intended recipient to copy your private note to
>500 of his closest friends.
>Bob Finn

Bob, Of course your second point is true, but I don't understand the first
point. Would you explain?


**************************************************************************

------------------------------

Message From: Chris Curran 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:42:01 -0500
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale -Reply

You can dream up and debate every possible solution to Joel's dilemma
about accidentally insulting someone, but the only *foolproof*
solution is to stop communicating.

Private email can be forwarded anywhere. Snail mail can be
photocopied or faxed. Phone calls can be recorded and replayed. Idle
chat in the bathroom can make it to the boss's office in 5.3
milliseconds flat.

It's silly to think that just because the conversations on this list
happen electronically we can come up with some techno-whiz-bang fix
to avoid getting egg on our faces.

Fortunately, every single one of us on list is brilliant, kind, full
of good humor, too thick-skinned to ever be insulted, and willing to
move on to another thought-provoking topic now.

chris curran
science writer
u.cincinnati (the real UC)
chris.curran@uc.edu

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Larry Krumenaker 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 20:16:19 +0000
Subject: A cautionary tale

>>there must be a better way to store old messages.

There is. . .it's called. . ..Message thread files (or on the Web, pages)  This
would require someone's attention and willingness to edit the messages,
though, and as John T, Bill T and I can attest, that can be a relatively
hard job when the conversations are heated, and easy if you receive them as
individual messages you can select as a group and do a File, Save As

Larry

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: "Joel N. Shurkin" 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:31:05 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Bob wrote:

>As far as I can tell, the only things that would prevent the search engines
>from indexing the nasw-x archives are:
>
>1. eliminate the archives entirely, or
>
>2. put them in a password protected area, accessible only to NASW members
>who have obtained a username and password.
>
>I'm strongly opposed to the first solution, and I don't like the second one
>much either.
>--


I don't like the first one either, but I have no objection to the second.
I'm told that SEJ has its archives off-line and we might want to find out
how they do that.

Part of my problem was that the message was, in fact, taken out of context,
but it sounds a little funny when, as a reporter for 30 years, you have to
argue context with someone.

j


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: "Joel N. Shurkin" 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:33:55 -0700
Subject: RE: nasw-talk V2 #146

Richard wrote:

>I, too, send my condolences to Joel. Of course we shouldn't say anything in
>this public forum we expect to remain confidential. But if you're tempted, at
>least misspell the guy's name so his search engine won't find it!
>


Fantastic! Why didn't I think of that? Richard Harrris, what a wily guy.

j


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Jon Franklin 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:54:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Re[2]: A cautionary tale

Bob Finn wrote:

>I think the hypermail archive is extremely useful. I see it as a yearlong
>(so far), seminar in science writing. 

>Just to take a recent example, suppose you were a gardener
>who was about to spread some bone meal on your zucchini. An Alta Vista
>search for "bone meal" would (probably not quite yet, but soon) turn up
>today's sober and even-handed discussion about whether prions might be
>spread by that means.

Jon Franklin muses:

It would also turn up my crack about how it's dangerous to your lower back,
which might indicate to a future employer that I have a back problem.  This
stuff could be taken out of context and probably will be.  At the same
time, this is a net-wide phenomenon.  Even if we used the password, could
you keep the passwords a secret?  Mark Twain said that two people could
keep a secret is one of them was dead.

In some ways stuff we say on the net, including email, is as public as
what's published in the newspaper.

###

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Jon Franklin 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:54:46 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Someone wrote:

>I was concerned about libel. Certainly any lawyer who sues a journalist for
>libel these days will search that journalist's internet messages. Comments
>outside the story can be used to establish malice, etc.  That's why I
>usually don't discuss ongoing stories in this conference. 

Jon Franklin notes:

It goes further than that, and could easily change the rules of the game.

The same would hold true in terms of bias, for instance.  If a journalist
shows a consistent bias on this list, for example, or even a bad temper, it
could be used to make an argument against you either in court or to your
employer. What may not seem like malice to a court might well come off as .
. . well, unseemly . . . to an employer.

Let's carry these thoughts further.  I tell my students that I would not
want them (much less a prospective employer) to see some of the horrible
stories I wrote early in my career.  Some of them, in hindsight, were
unfair.  Others were just stupid.  (Let's not even raise the subject of
horrible stories I may have done later in my career, when I should have
known better :)  However, this is not something I have to worry about,
personally, since most of the evidence has long since yellowed to dust is
hidden away on microfilm in some genrally inaccessible newspaper library.
This may not be true for the next generation of reporters.  There is now a
potential for everything you write to live forever, and to be searchable
forever.  So a story that seems reasonable today could easily to turn into
a dead albatross that you will have to drag around for the rest of your
life.  Or, I suppose, until you change your name, or go into real estate.

For example, how many folks on this list hopped onto the herpes story like
it was the end of the world, only to abruptly drop it at almost the exact
same time everyone else did?  Or the missing children story.  Etc., etc., etc.

I'm not throwing rocks; I live in a glass house too.  I am just noting that
there are more rocks laying around than there use to be, and to me, at
least, the glass appears thinner.

As I said, this may change some of the rules of the game.

###

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Jon Franklin 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:54:49 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Bob Finn wrote:

>In the year since the NASW web site was established, the hypermail archives
>have been hit exactly 123,700 times. During the last seven days, the
>archives have been hit an average of 523 times per day. From June 96
>through April 97 the monthly number of hits to the hypermail archives grew
>exponentially (I haven't done a mathematical analysis, but the graph sure
>looks exponential), peaking at 29,152 hits during April, although for some
>reason there was a decline in hits during May 97 and June 97 (an incomplete
>month).

Jon Franklin raises his eyebrows:

Without disrupting the ongoing conversation, this is impressive.  Rather
than tone done maybe we should get more outrageous yet (I do believe we
have the capacity) and start doing microcharges for it.

###


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:58:24 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

At 12:12 PM 6/26/97 -0700, Stephen Hart wrote:
>>6. As most of you know, even regular email is like a postcard. It's
>>trivially easy for other people to read your mail, unless you encrypt it,
>>and it's even easier for an intended recipient to copy your private note to
>>500 of his closest friends.
>>Bob Finn
>
>Bob, Of course your second point is true, but I don't understand the first
>point. Would you explain?
>

Your mail passes through many nodes on its way from your computer to its
final destination. The administrators of each of these nodes clearly have
the ability to read all cleartext traffic coming through their sites. I
believe I have also read that people who do not have legitimate
administrative access may have devious ways of accessing messages that pass
through some nodes. 

On top of that, several court cases have held that employers have the
absolute right to read all their employees' email. I don't agree with those
decisions, but there it is. Probably the majority of the people who are
subscribed to nasw-x mailing lists do so from their work accounts, so their
bosses can read anything.

On top of that, unless your computer itself is password protected, the
night janitor can boot it up and read all your mail. If your computer is at
home, so can your teenaged son. (I'm not suggesting that your son would do
such a thing, Steve.)

If you want, I can come up with several more scenarios that illustrate that
all email should be thought of as an open postcard, unless you take great
pains to encrypt it.


- --
Bob Finn
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Stephen Hart 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 13:55:49 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

>2. put them in a password protected area, accessible only to NASW members
>who have obtained a username and password.
>
>I'm strongly opposed to the first solution, and I don't like the second one
>much either.
>- --
>Bob Finn

Don't mean to be argumentative, but I support password protecting the archives.

Two reasons: First, Joel's experience and the resulting discussion may have
the dreaded "chilling effect." Second, I want a web searcher to find my web
page easily, and to be forced to wade through dozens of (mostly useless to
*anyone*) NASW list archives.

Steve


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Stephen Hart 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:04:13 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

>Is is practicable to archive only
>certain threads, namely those pertaining to certain "professional" topics,
>such
>as how to break into the business, fees, contracts, payment times,
>internships,
>the role of hack vs. flack, but not archive others?

Excellent idea.

>Yes, a gardener might come across the
>discussion on bone meal
>Gabrielle

That's a chilling idea. With, I think, one exception--Mike's link--all the
messages have been of the "It seems to me. . ." type. Good conversation, but
not what I'd call reliable research data.

Steve


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bill Thomasson <71101.2601@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:17:23 -0400
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Bob Finn wrote:"What do other list members think about all of this? Should
I do what I can (which may not be much) to prevent nasw-x messages from
being indexed by the search engines, or do others see positive value in
this indexing? Is there support for taking the more drastic step of
eliminating the hypermail archives?"

I see the major virtue of the hypermail archives as allowing new list
members (or, perhaps more importantly, potential list members) to get up to
speed. Which means, since the list itself is not limited to NASW members, I
think there would be drawbacks to limiting hypermail access to NASW members
and still greater drawbacks to eliminating the archives entirely. 

On the other hand, Bob's remark about gardners accessing our discussions
about prions and bone meal scares me even more than Joel's story. As we've
seen earlier today, I don't always express my posts here with the care and
precision that I would hope to employ for a lay audience. So that becomes
yet another reason, beyond the shear clutter, for doing our best to keep
the hypermail archives from being indexed. And if there is indeed no other
way to do it, then perhaps we *should* make the archives members-only.

If we don't stop them from being indexed, and perhaps even if we do, I'd
also like to support Richard's suggestion that any files Bob doesn't
consider certifiably evergreen should be pulled down after three months or
so. Even with apparently unlimited storage, the clutter factor seems to me
to overshadow the advantages of a "permanent" archive. And, as Richard
points out, it at least limits the length of time we need to feel sorry for
what we said.


Finally, and in connection with an entirely different part of Bob's
message, I'd like to second Steve's request that Bob explain how one-to-one
email can be readily accessed by third parties. Assuming your recipient
has the good manners and good sense not to forward it (which can also
happen with paper mail) and that you don't have the misfortune to be
dealing with a totally unethical ISP, I don't see how this would be
possible. 

Bill Thomasson
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:18:49 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

At 01:54 PM 6/26/97 -0700, Jon Franklin wrote:
>Rather
>than tone done maybe we should get more outrageous yet (I do believe we
>have the capacity) and start doing microcharges for it.
>

Microcharges, hell. I say, let's go for macrocharges. I think I should be
paid $10 to read some of the stuff that some people post here!

Oh, did you mean that the people *reading* the lists should pay?

Never mind.


- --
Bob Finn
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bill Thomasson <71101.2601@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:10:35 -0400
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Bob Finn wrote (in a message that crossed mine asking him to expand on his
earlier remarks about lack of security in one-to-one email): 

>>Your mail passes through many nodes on its way from your computer to its final
destination. The administrators of each of these nodes clearly have the
ability to read all cleartext traffic coming through their sites.

True as far as it goes, provided they don't care about their reputations
when they get caught. (I don't know if they risk going to jail. If they
don't, they should.) But only your own ISP has any significant ability to
specifically target your mail. In all other cases -- correct me if I'm
wrong -- the specific nodes any given message will pass through are
unpredictable. I also believe that different *parts* of a specific message
may take different routes, still further limiting the ability of a given
node administrator to in any meaningful way read the mail of anyone other
than his or her own subscribers.

>>I believe I have also read that people who do not have legitimate
administrative access may have devious ways of accessing messages that pass
through some nodes.

Very likely. But are these ways "trivially easy?" Without having any
personal knowledge of the matter, I would be surprised if it were so.

>>If your computer is at home, so can your teenaged son.

He can also open and read my snail mail.

>>On top of that, several court cases have held that employers have the
absolute right to read all their employees' email. I don't agree with those
decisions, but there it is.

I do agree with those decisions. Which is precisely why, if I went to work
for someone else full-time tomorrow, I would still access nasw-x from home.
The fact that what I say here is none of my boss's business directly
implies that I shouldn't be saying it at work. And if circumstances dictate
that what I say *is* my boss's business, the fact that she -- one person - --
has a right to access it still doesn't make it equivalent to a open post
card.


In summary, if it is true that node administrators who intercept private
email don't go to jail, as a postal employee would in similar
circumstances, then email may be slightly less secure than snail mail. It
is more like a telephone call. (Operators can -- and at least in past years
certainly did -- listen in on private calls. [They could be fired if the
got caught, of course.] And the same court decisions that gave employers
the right to read employee's email also gave them the right to listen in
on employee's phone calls.) But that is still a far cry from what you seem
to be claiming.

Bill Thomasson
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Jeff Hecht 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:29:41 -0400
Subject: Re: archiving nasw-x

I would like to see at least nasw-freelance password-protected, so we could
talk about private business matters without having to worry about search
engines. In fact, I wouldn't mind all nasw-x archives being password
protected, and being dumped after some pre-set time (3 months sounds good)
unless they are clearly of important archival value. One miracle of
computer technology is that it can save damn near everything, but most of
what it's saving here is just digital clutter, the electronic equivalent of
the scratch notes that would crowd you out of your office if you didn't
toss them.

I don't expect perfect security for email, just as I don't expect perfect
security on a telephone call. However, I do feel free in private
conversations or email to warn friends not to deal with an individual who
appears to have done something crooked, while I would not name names in a
public forum like this one.
- -- Jeff Hecht


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:54:48 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

At 06:10 PM 6/26/97 -0400, Bill Thomasson wrote:
>Bob Finn wrote (in a message that crossed mine asking him to expand on his
>earlier remarks about lack of security in one-to-one email): >>Your mail
>passes through many nodes on its way from your computer to its final
>destination. The administrators of each of these nodes clearly have the
>ability to read all cleartext traffic coming through their sites.
>
>True as far as it goes, provided they don't care about their reputations
>when they get caught. (I don't know if they risk going to jail. If they
>don't, they should.) 

I agree that intercepting email should be a crime, but I don't believe that
it is. Does anyone know for sure?

>But only your own ISP has any significant ability to
>specifically target your mail. In all other cases -- correct me if I'm
>wrong -- the specific nodes any given message will pass through are
>unpredictable. I also believe that different *parts* of a specific message
>may take different routes, still further limiting the ability of a given
>node administrator to in any meaningful way read the mail of anyone other
>than his or her own subscribers.

I believe you're correct. A casual eavesdropper would probably only be able
to see pieces of random collections of email. A slightly less casual
eavesdropper could scan large volumes of message pieces for series of
numbers that look like credit card numbers, for example. But what about the
non-causal eavesdropper with a motive to target a particular person's
email? I don't know if it's possible, but I sure wouldn't want to bet my
livelihood on it.

>>>If your computer is at home, so can your teenaged son.
>
>He can also open and read my snail mail.
>

But if the envelope had been sealed, you'd at least notice. Not so with email.

>>>On top of that, several court cases have held that employers have the
>absolute right to read all their employees' email. I don't agree with those
>decisions, but there it is.
>
>I do agree with those decisions. Which is precisely why, if I went to work
>for someone else full-time tomorrow, I would still access nasw-x from home.
>The fact that what I say here is none of my boss's business directly
>implies that I shouldn't be saying it at work. And if circumstances dictate
>that what I say *is* my boss's business, the fact that she -- one person --
>has a right to access it still doesn't make it equivalent to a open post
>card.
>

Wait a minute. It's not just one person. It's your boss and her direct
supervisor, and *her* direct supervisor, and anyone in the personnel
department and anyone in the computer department, etc.

>
>In summary, if it is true that node administrators who intercept private
>email don't go to jail, as a postal employee would in similar
>circumstances, then email may be slightly less secure than snail mail. It
>is more like a telephone call. (Operators can -- and at least in past years
>certainly did -- listen in on private calls. [They could be fired if the
>got caught, of course.] And the same court decisions that gave employers
>the right to read employee's email also gave them the right to listen in
>on employee's phone calls.) But that is still a far cry from what you seem
>to be claiming.

I think I am well within standardly acceptable levels of paranoia to claim
that all non-encrypted email should be regarded as no more secure than an
open postcard. Just as no one in the post office bothers to eavesdrop on
the vast majority of postcards, no one bothers to eavesdrop on the vast
majority of email. Still, if you're transmitting critical messages that
must not be intercepted or altered and must be read only by its intended
recipient, you need to use a program like PGP to encrypt them.

And to bring this full circle, if regular email sent from one individual to
another is as private as a postcard, email sent to a listserv is about as
private as a CB radio transmission.

- --
Bob Finn
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Henry Lansford 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:22:09 -0600
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Bill wrote:

>If we don't stop them from being indexed, and perhaps even if we do, I'd
>also like to support Richard's suggestion that any files Bob doesn't
>consider certifiably evergreen should be pulled down after three months or
>so.

Is that in your job description, Bob? Do you really want to take on the
task of culling all of my deciduous posts from the archives?

Henry

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Henry Lansford 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:14:51 -0600
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Somebody wrote:

>>Is is practicable to archive only
>>certain threads, namely those pertaining to certain "professional" topics,
>>such
>>as how to break into the business, fees, contracts, payment times,
>>internships,
>>the role of hack vs. flack, but not archive others?

In a forum such as this one, it may be undesirable as well as
impracticable. The line between professionalism and frivolity is not always
so clearly discernible, and the two often are inextricably commingled. Do
we have a volunteer for the job of separating sheep from goats?

Henry

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:52:05 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

At 05:22 PM 6/26/97 -0600, Henry Lansford wrote:
>Do you really want to take on the
>task of culling all of my deciduous posts from the archives?

Henry, Henry, Henry,

You're mixing your metaphors. Are your posts autumn leaves, as you imply
here, or are they sheep and goats, as you say elsewhere? Maybe they're
wheat and chaff. Or maybe they're needles and haystacks.

Whatever they are, I certainly don't relish going over the 2,409 nasw-talk
posts (whoops, 2,410) and the 1,179 nasw-freelance posts one by one,
deciding which are worth saving and tossing the rest. I am morally certain
that only 10% of the posts are definitely worth saving, and only 10% are
definitely worth discarding, leaving me 2,871.2 difficult decisions.
- --
Bob Finn
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Stephen Hart 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:27:46 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

>Second, I want a web searcher to find my web
>page easily, and to be forced to wade through dozens of (mostly useless to
>*anyone*) NASW list archives.
>Steve

Of course, I meant *not* to be forced to wade. . .

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Henry Lansford 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:41:26 -0600
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Bob wrote:

>Henry, Henry, Henry,
>
>You're mixing your metaphors. Are your posts autumn leaves, as you imply
>here, or are they sheep and goats, as you say elsewhere? Maybe they're
>wheat and chaff. Or maybe they're needles and haystacks.

All of these, Bob, all of these. Can the wheat achieve real existence
without the chaff? Can we truly know the exquisitely unique sharpness of
the needle if it is not surrounded by the diffuse blahness of the haystack?
If I may obfuscate the metaphorical landscape even more, some few
contribute clear and meaningful signals to nasw-talk while the rest of us
provide the noise that affirms their clarity and meaning. We also serve who
only sit at the keyboard and babble nonsense like this.

Henry

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Jon Franklin 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:46:49 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Bob Finn wrote:

>And to bring this full circle, if regular email sent from one individual to
>another is as private as a postcard, email sent to a listserv is about as
>private as a CB radio transmission.

Jon Franklin haggles:

It seems to me that it's more like printing it in a magazine.  What you say
is catalogued, internationally available and it has the potential to hang
around forever.  You are exposed to libel action, not just slander, and
your liability is very long lasting.  Lastly, though this is somewhat still
up in the air, the copyright principles seem to me to be largely derived
from the print medium.

I'm not arguing the issue at hand.  My own perception is that this is an
inevitable consequence of the medium.  Even if we took stuff off the air
after three months or so, it could have been collected and catalogued by
others in the meanwhile -- and their might be commercial reasons (that is,
PR) to do that.  So in my view the most conservative solution is only
partial and short term, and that ultimately we may have to alter our behavior.

###


**************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message From: Jon Franklin 
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:46:50 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

The conversation proceeds:

>>If we don't stop them from being indexed, and perhaps even if we do, I'd
>>also like to support Richard's suggestion that any files Bob doesn't
>>consider certifiably evergreen should be pulled down after three months or
>>so.
>
>Is that in your job description, Bob? Do you really want to take on the
>task of culling all of my deciduous posts from the archives?

Jon Franklin is outraged, just outraged!

Touch a single one of my precious words, sucker, and you're history . . . :)

###

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bill Thomasson <71101.2601@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:29:03 -0400
Subject: Re: a cautionary tale

Bob Finn wrote: >>I am morally certain that only 10% of the posts are
definitely worth saving, and only 10% are definitely worth discarding,
leaving me 2,871.2 difficult decisions.

Hey, Bob,

Aside from that fact that you're a year behind, it's not all that hard: If
it's not definitely worth saving, it goes. And if you make a mistake . . . 
What the heck, nobody's perfect. I sure wasn't. 

Bill Thomasson
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: "Joel N. Shurkin" 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:01:31 -0700
Subject: Freelance privacy

Before this conversation roars off into the blue I would like to strongly
suggest that the freelance listserv, if no other, be made as private as it
can. The freer the discussion we can have without being indexed for the
general public, the more useful the listserv. We ought to be able to
describe experiences we have had with our clients without having our
clients listen in; we ought to be able to talk about story ideas and angles
without people with a different ethical standard peeping. I can envision a
writer having had a bad experience with an editor or a publication saying
so on the line and having that editor or another editor seeing the message.
If we knew the chances of that were greatly reduced (and I know they can't
be eliminated) we are more likely to have a franker discussion. I am simply
appalled that all this is available to anyone with a searcher.

I am still unimpressed with the arguments that any of these forums should
be indexed, by the way, but at least the freelance one should not.

j

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Jon Franklin 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:33:51 -0700
Subject: Re: listserv privacy -- let's don't bury this

Joel Shirkin wrote:

>Before this conversation roars off into the blue I would like to strongly
>suggest that the freelance listserv, if no other, be made as private as it
>can. The freer the discussion we can have without being indexed for the
>general public, the more useful the listserv.

Jon Franklin agrees:

Just for the record, I think Joel's concerns are real and haven't been
addressed, either in terms of the free-lance listserve or the larger one.
(I think I'm on the larger one.)  It IS important to be able to have a
private forum, or as private as possible . . . the electronic equivalent of
a guttering candle.  Freedom of assembly on the internet, that kind of thing.

The question is . . . how?  Is there really no technological way to have
the record of the conversation evaporate?  It is true that a member of the
list could still give out information, but that's always a reality.

If such privacy can't be obtained at the NASW level, perhaps it needs to be
outside, if, again, it's technologically feasible.

If it is not technologically feasible, then we ought to have a serious
discussion, at some point, on the implications.  What is the proper conduct
for a science writer, in that case?  For a journalist, generally.  Do we
need to draw clearer lines between our public conduct and our private
conduct, in terms of what we say?

Perhaps we haven't digested the subject yet, but those implications seem
very real to me, and the chilling effect very real as well.  So what might
the practical limits be?

###

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Henry Lansford 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:41:23 -0600
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

Joel wrote:

>Before this conversation roars off into the blue I would like to strongly
>suggest that the freelance listserv, if no other, be made as private as it
>can.

As a freelancer, I agree totally.

>I can envision a writer having had a bad experience with an editor
>or a publication saying so on the line and having that editor or
>another editor seeing the message.

As Joel points out, the chances of that happening can be reduced but not
eliminated. I assume that some editors subscribe to nasw-freelance, so
reprisal is always a possibility when individual freelancers use the list
as a forum to criticize the practices of specific publications and/or
editors.

I think we have pretty well established that privacy on a listserv is an
oxymoron.

Henry

**************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:09:37 -0700
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

At 09:01 AM 6/27/97 -0700, Joel N. Shurkin wrote:
>Before this conversation roars off into the blue I would like to strongly
>suggest that the freelance listserv, if no other, be made as private as it
>can. The freer the discussion we can have without being indexed for the
>general public, the more useful the listserv. We ought to be able to
>describe experiences we have had with our clients without having our
>clients listen in; we ought to be able to talk about story ideas and angles
>without people with a different ethical standard peeping. I can envision a
>writer having had a bad experience with an editor or a publication saying
>so on the line and having that editor or another editor seeing the message.
>If we knew the chances of that were greatly reduced (and I know they can't
>be eliminated) we are more likely to have a franker discussion. I am simply
>appalled that all this is available to anyone with a searcher.

Joel,

I think there might be merit in closing nasw-freelance or establishing a
different closed list open only to NASW members and not available to the
search engines.

However, there are several unstated assumptions in your statement that do
not, I think, hold up. Several of my clients are members of NASW. I'm sure
this is true of many others here as well. On what basis would we exclude
them? And I can't believe that you really think that all NASW members have
the same ethical standards. You imply that you think you'd be safe in
discussing hot story ideas or angles on an NASW-only list, and that nobody
would steal them. I, for one, am not willing to trust each and every one of
the 1,832 NASW members that far.

>>
>I am still unimpressed with the arguments that any of these forums should
>be indexed, by the way, but at least the freelance one should not.
>

I am pursuing ways to prevent the main search engines from indexing our
hypermail archives. Jeff Foust posted an interesting URL --
 -- that indicates that the
main ones do respect requests not to index contained in a robots.txt file.
However Tim indicates that the minor indexers -- and there are many of
these -- do not typically honor those requests. And I'm unclear about
whether putting up a robots.txt file will be enough to get the main search
engines from de-indexing the messages they already have. 


- --
Bob Finn
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Jon Franklin 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:50:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

We could always post anonymously.  I have always been against this, in
principle, but this conversation is making me rethink the issue.

- -- Deep Ear
TheEar@1800ea-ahnevermind


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: "Joel N. Shurkin" 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:54:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

Bob wrote:

>However, there are several unstated assumptions in your statement that do
>not, I think, hold up. Several of my clients are members of NASW. I'm sure
>this is true of many others here as well. On what basis would we exclude
>them? And I can't believe that you really think that all NASW members have
>the same ethical standards. You imply that you think you'd be safe in
>discussing hot story ideas or angles on an NASW-only list, and that nobody
>would steal them. I, for one, am not willing to trust each and every one of
>the 1,832 NASW members that far.

I understand the problem. This is solved by two ways. One, if everyone on
the list could know who else is on the list, that might give us some idea
of what would be appropriate to discuss. I have no clue who is on the
freelance list, and surely editors and publishers are among them. I'm sure
it is available; I never asked. Whether they ought to be on the list, is
another issue. I believe they are excluded from ASJA's forum, but I don't
know if we could or should do the same. I can make a case I'd like their
input (they are mostly good people). I could also make a case I'd like to
be able to talk to them behind their backs. Comments out there?

Two, we still ought to make some restrictions on access to the archives. I
see no purpose, despite all those hits, why we should provide a public
forum for anyone with a search engine.

>
>>>
>>I am still unimpressed with the arguments that any of these forums should
>>be indexed, by the way, but at least the freelance one should not.
>>
>
>I am pursuing ways to prevent the main search engines from indexing our
>hypermail archives. Jeff Foust posted an interesting URL --
> -- that indicates that the
>main ones do respect requests not to index contained in a robots.txt file.
>However Tim indicates that the minor indexers -- and there are many of
>these -- do not typically honor those requests. And I'm unclear about
>whether putting up a robots.txt file will be enough to get the main search
>engines from de-indexing the messages they already have.
>
>

Sounds good to me.

I need to emphasize in this discussion that the incident that triggered it
is no one's fault but my own. But something beneficial might come out of it.

j

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: mankin@usc.edu (Eric Mankin)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:26:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

All these privacy problems are artifacts of having the discussions
on listservs, as opposed to on archives kept at a dedicated
facility, such as exists on (for example) the WELL -- where
conversations are _not_ accessible to search engines. I
don't think the resources necessary to change over to a WELL-type
operation are beyond the reach of NASW.
Having the conversations take place at a site (it
can be the www one) where people sign in, rather than as
a continuing stream of email messages, is less
intrusive as well as much more private.
  Eric Mankin

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:52:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

At 10:54 AM 6/27/97 -0700, Joel N. Shurkin wrote:
>I understand the problem. This is solved by two ways. One, if everyone on
>the list could know who else is on the list, that might give us some idea
>of what would be appropriate to discuss. I have no clue who is on the
>freelance list, and surely editors and publishers are among them. I'm sure
>it is available; I never asked. 

Anyone subscribed to nasw-freelance can get a full list of the email
addresses of the list's subcribers by sending mail to majordomo@nasw.org
with the following two lines in the body of the message:

who nasw-freelance
who nasw-freelance-digest



>Whether they ought to be on the list, is
>another issue. I believe they are excluded from ASJA's forum, but I don't
>know if we could or should do the same. I can make a case I'd like their
>input (they are mostly good people). I could also make a case I'd like to
>be able to talk to them behind their backs. Comments out there?
>

Some NASW members are editors part time and freelance writers part time. Do
you exclude them? How about contributing editors? How about PR people who
freelance part time? Who polices this? Suppose a previously acceptable,
card carrying freelance writer takes a job as an editor and doesn't mention
it. How and when would he get booted off the list. Do you really want to
start an argument more pointless than associate vs. active, more vitriolic
than CompuServe vs. the Web, more endless than Mac vs Wintel?

>Two, we still ought to make some restrictions on access to the archives. I
>see no purpose, despite all those hits, why we should provide a public
>forum for anyone with a search engine.
>

I would like to get input from many more people on this issue. Would some
of the hundreds of nasw-freelance members who have never before posted
please weigh in with your opinions?

- --
Bob Finn
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Stephen Hart 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:43:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

>Before this conversation roars off into the blue I would like to strongly
>suggest that the freelance listserv, if no other, be made as private as it
>can. . ..

I completely agree, Joel, with all of your comments in this post.
Well said.

Steve


**************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message From: ShaunaR989@aol.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:23:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Do we need a private forum?

I second Jeff Hecht's suggestion that a private forum could be very useful if
we we can't stop search bots from indexing our lists. This is the natural
group to turn to for advice about how to help a client with a problem they're
having  (or how to solve a problem with a client) and to let off steam. But
we can't safely do any of that if every word is  saved for the entire world's
perusal for the rest of our lifespan. Sooner or later, we'll all share Joel's
chilling experience.

However, I supposed the current situation is a dream come true for any writer
who ever mourned the ephermeral nature of newspapers and magazines. Thanks to
search engines, our words will live forever, whether we want them to or not. 

Shauna Roberts
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: "Joel N. Shurkin" 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:36:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

Jon wrote:

>We could always post anonymously.  I have always been against this, in
>principle, but this conversation is making me rethink the issue.
>
>-- Deep Ear
>TheEar@1800ea-ahnevermind
>
Boy, I don't like that idea very much.

j


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: "Joel N. Shurkin" 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:39:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

Bob the Cybrarian wrote:

>
>I would like to get input from many more people on this issue. Would some
>of the hundreds of nasw-freelance members who have never before posted
>please weigh in with your opinions?
>
>

Yes. Now's the time, people.

j

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: John Ludwigson 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 18:01:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

>I would like to get input from many more people on this issue. Would some
>of the hundreds of nasw-freelance members who have never before posted
>please weigh in with your opinions?

OK, Bob. . .

  Seems to me Joel's got a good proposal: limit access to the 
nasw-freelance list to NASW members.  Beyond that, we get into the 
problem of certifying who's acceptable and who's not. Nothing could be 
more divisive! Nasw-talk should remain as it is, open.

  Many years ago it became clear to me that my name was all over the 
place, that by working as a reporter/writer (a respectful nod here to 
Warren Kornberg for noting the possibility of a distinction) I had 
entered the public arena and was no longer just a private citizen. It was 
clear that I could either get used to it or get out (and here Harry 
Truman's saying about kitchens and heat applies). Now, I'm a pretty small 
fish compared to some NASW members, so this must apply to them also. We 
can have some measure of privacy, but to function as writers or reporters 
or editors or, heck, even publishers we necessarily work in the open with 
all the hazards that implies.

  Joel,  Thank you very much for sharing your "cautionary tale." Had you 
not, it might have been quite a while before this very important problem 
of the electronic age got a good airing here.  You brought it close to 
home for me, and, from the messages here, a lot of other people.  Good 
Luck!

Cheers,  John Ludwigson
  
  
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: "Joel N. Shurkin" 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:40:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

Giving it all some very fast thought, I do not propose that we exclude
editors and publishers from the freelance listserv. It would be impossible
to do, and frankly counterproductive. Their input would be too valuable. We
need to talk to each other more. But excluding all but NASW members would
be appropriate, I think.

By the way, in the middle of all this, I sold a good magazine piece, so the
week wasn't a total disaster.

j

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Henry Lansford 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:08:42 -0600
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

Joel wrote:

>By the way, in the middle of all this, I sold a good magazine piece, so the
>week wasn't a total disaster.

Joel, you did another really good thing by stirring the nasw-talk pot to
bring this question to the surface.

Either it's a really important issue or there are a lot of freelancers out
there who are between jobs with time on their hands. I remember a time not
long ago when nothing at all turned up on the listserv for about three days
and I sent Bob a note asking if there were technical problems.

Henry

**************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message From: Bill Thomasson <71101.2601@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:14:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

Eric Mankin wrote: >>All these privacy problems are artifacts of having the
discussions on listservs, as opposed to on archives kept at a dedicated
facility, such as exists on (for example) the WELL -- where conversations
are _not_ accessible to search engines. I don't think the resources
necessary to change over to a WELL-type operation are beyond the reach of
NASW. Having the conversations take place at a site (it can be the www one)
where people sign in, rather than as a continuing stream of email messages,
is less intrusive as well as much more private.

Having never been a WELL denizen, I'm not entirely sure I understand what
you are saying. I had thought the WELL was very similar to CompuServe --
where, as you probably know, NASW had a site until about four months ago.

What we said on CompuServe was indeed not accessible to search engines and
therefore to any of the millions of people with search-engine access. It
was only accessible to any of the 100,000 or so CompuServe members who
chose to log onto to JFORUM. Other features that made it more private than
here were that messages scrolled off the board in about 10 days if they
weren't explicitly saved by the sysop, and if they were saved they were
usually removed in four or five months unless certifiably evergreen. What's
more, the library where they were saved, unlike to board itself, was
restricted to NASW members.

So CompuServe's NASW On-Line was significantly more private than what we
have here. But I still don't see it as private enough to meet the needs
that are being expressed. Is what you have different enough to meet those
needs? If so, please explain in more detail.

And Bob Finn wrote: "I would like to get input from many more people on
this issue." I believe we had a discussion some time ago (around the first
of the year, maybe?) in which I and others expressed the opinion that we
need an nasw-members only list in addition to those we now have. I still
think so.

Bill Thomasson
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Eric Schoch 
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 11:12:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

Okay, here's one lurker brought out by the appeals for comments on privacy
and the lists.

I'd vote against limiting either list to NASW members only, because I
believe any organization-related list can get valuable input from
"outsiders" interested enough to join the discussion. That's happened on
the IRE-L list. On the other hand, outsiders on a mission to bash
journalists have occasionally made the SPJ-L list nearly useless, so
sometimes there's a price to pay. I also think trying to keep editors,
publishers or any other category of person off a list is both a bad idea
and impossible to do.

I'd vote for inserting the necessary code to rebuff the search engines
polite enough to pay attention to it, since it appears that will take care
of most of the major ones. I must confess, however, the fact that the
robots and spiders can pick this missive up for anyone to read doesn't
bother me much.

I'd vote against doing away with the archives. I feel stronly about this,
and having lived in Chicago for a time, I'd vote against it several times.
:)  (And now my slur upon Chicago -- which by the way is *a wonderful city*
- -- will live forever.)

There's simply no way you can ensure that something you write on a public
list -- or even a private list -- won't find its way to someone you'd
rather didn't read it. If someone asks whether anyone has, for example, had
problems with such-and-so publisher, and you want tell them to stay away,
your alternative is to reply to them by private email. (And even then,
there's no guarantee they won't compile the replies and post them back to
the list in Internet tradition, but forget to remove the names.)

I believe the phrase "you own your own words" originated at The Well, and
Joel's cautionary tale gives it new meaning. Its easy to forget that
posting here is more akin to shouting than whispering.

Finally, I'd vote to say thanks to both Joel and Jon, for sparking some
good talk here lately.

Eric Schoch
Science and technology writer, er, reporter
The Indianapolis Star and News
317-633-1198
ebschoch@gutenberg.iupui.edu
eschoch@starnews.com

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: susan grammer 
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 12:46:46 +0000
Subject: re: privacy

Bob the Cybrarian wrote:
>I would like to get input from many more people on this issue. Would some
>of the hundreds of nasw-freelance members who have never before posted
>please weigh in with your opinions?
>

and 

John L. wrote:
>  Nasw-talk should remain as it is, open.
> 
>   Many years ago it became clear to me that my name was all over the
> place, that by working as a reporter/writer (a respectful nod here to
> Warren Kornberg for noting the possibility of a distinction) I had
> entered the public arena and was no longer just a private citizen. It was
> clear that I could either get used to it or get out (and here Harry
> Truman's saying about kitchens and heat applies).

I agree with John here, in spite of the fact that I already have a 
slightly embarassing claim to fame. A Yahoo search of my name yielded  
a direct line to the thread I started last month on nasw-talk with my 
innocent questions about breaking into science writing from a career 
as a bench scientist (you remember - the AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH 
thread?) and to the website created to carry the discussion.  I do 
hope that future potenial clients do not do a search for my name and 
learn all the personal details about my career transition which I 
included in my postings to this list, but I still believe that the 
archives could be a wonderful source of guidance to people such as 
myself attempting to learn about the ins and outs of this profession.  
I would also hate to hear anyone hold back much in the way of comments 
infused with personality, as it is great to sit here day after day and 
"listen" to the "water-cooler" conversations of those whose articles I 
am noticing in various publications while I work to break into the 
field.  I learn so much every day. . .. . .. . ...

  Maybe a reminder to new subscribers in their introductory subscriber 
message could highlight the fact that the archives are actively 
searched and that you never know who might be listening on the other 
side of the "office cubicle".  I for one would hate to have the list 
limited to members only, since I don't yet have the appropriate 
credentials for membership.

Susan Grammer
grammer@herald.infi.net
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Michael Kenward 
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 12:46:41 +0100
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

At 12:41 am 26/06/97 -0400, Roger Johnson wrote, among other things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just in case you forgot what you wrote <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Your point is well taken.  These conversations are very public.
>

Is this true for closed lists? (Those that require approval to join.)
Otherwise, how does the indexer get access to a listserver/majordomo's output?

MK


_______________________________________________________________________ 
Michael Kenward OBE    / Phone: +44 (0)1444 400568  Fax: (0)1444 401064
Science Writer &      /                  michael.kenward@dial.pipex.com
Editorial Consultant /    http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/michael.kenward/
**************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message From: Jennifer.Motl@mcdev.med.nyu.edu
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: re:freelance privacy

     I agree with the following message from John -- somehow screen 
     applicants to the list to make sure they are members of NASW. That's 
     all we can do.
     
     Jennifer Motl, Science Writer
     NYU Medical Center 
     ------------------------------
     
     
     Message From: John Ludwigson 
     Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 18:01:13 -0400
     Subject: Re: Freelance privacy
     
     >I would like to get input from many more people on this issue. Would 
     some
     >of the hundreds of nasw-freelance members who have never before 
     posted
     >please weigh in with your opinions?
     
     OK, Bob. . .
     
       Seems to me Joel's got a good proposal: limit access to the 
     nasw-freelance list to NASW members.  Beyond that, we get into the 
     problem of certifying who's acceptable and who's not. Nothing could be 
     more divisive! Nasw-talk should remain as it is, open.
     
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:13:26 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

At 12:46 PM 6/29/97 +0100, Michael Kenward wrote:
>At 12:41 am 26/06/97 -0400, Roger Johnson wrote, among other things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just in case you forgot what you wrote <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>>Your point is well taken.  These conversations are very public.
>>
>
>Is this true for closed lists? (Those that require approval to join.)
>Otherwise, how does the indexer get access to a listserver/majordomo's
output?
>

It depends. A list manager could choose to restrict subscriptions to a list
while putting its archives in an open, web-based archive. If the archive
were placed in a password-protected area, on the other hand, or if there
were no archive at all, the indexer could not get access to it.
- --
Bob Finn
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Holmes 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:07:02 -0800
Subject: Restricting nasw-freelance

I'd vote in favor of restricting NASW-freelance in some way, but I'm
reluctant to close it down too tightly. Here are two possibilities that
occur to me:

1) Restrict access to the archives to list members only. That would keep
out the search engines, while still keeping access as free as possible. And
if our archives don't show up on broad, net-wide searches, problems like
Joel's would be a lot less likely to occur. Or, a little more restrictive,

2) Require NASW membership or permission of listowner. That would give us a
bit safer forum to discuss specifics of editors and magazines, but
newcomers who don't yet qualify for membership could still get in. The
permission requirement would probably keep out the idle gawkers (assuming
there are any such) that might poke around just to see what's going on. And
I would hope permissions would only take a few minutes of the listowner's
time now and then, so they wouldn't add appreciably to Bob Finn's load.


Bob Holmes
Santa Cruz, CA


**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:08:29 -0700
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

NASW Prez Richard Harris informs me that the NASW board is discussing
issues related to mailing list privacy on their own (private, unarchived)
mailing list. He or I will post the board's decisions when they have made
them. At least some members of the board are monitoring opinions expressed
on nasw-talk and nasw-freelance, so I encourage all of you to keep posting
them.

- --
Bob Finn
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Norman Bauman 
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 15:00:03
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

Bob, what are the other commands for other functions of majordomo?

At 11:52 AM 6/27/97 -0700, Bob Finn wrote:
>Anyone subscribed to nasw-freelance can get a full list of the email
>addresses of the list's subcribers by sending mail to majordomo@nasw.org
>with the following two lines in the body of the message:
>
>who nasw-freelance
>who nasw-freelance-digest

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Rick Borchelt 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 15:19:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: A cautionary tale

Bob Finn writes:

>NASW Prez Richard Harris informs me that the NASW board is discussing
>issues related to mailing list privacy on their own (private, unarchived)
>mailing list. He or I will post the board's decisions when they have made
>them. At least some members of the board are monitoring opinions expressed
>on nasw-talk and nasw-freelance, so I encourage all of you to keep posting
>them.
>

Lurking is part of our job description!


Rick Borchelt
Manager, Media Relations
Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
POB 2008 MS 6416
Oak Ridge, TN  37831-6416
423-241-4208 (p)
423-574-0595 (f)
http://www.ornl.gov

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Bob Finn 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:22:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy

At 03:00 PM 6/28/97, Norman Bauman wrote:
>Bob, what are the other commands for other functions of majordomo?
>

You can find a list of majordomo commands at:


- --
Bob Finn
**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Mary Knudson 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:54:02 -0500
Subject: privacy

I'm in favor of Bob doing what he can to discourage or prevent search 
engines from picking up our messages and depositing them by our names 
or by certain subject key words so that they appear out of context.  
But, much as I sympathize with freelance writers in particular who would 
like to have a forum seen only by peers, I favor keeping the NASW-Talk 
amd MASW-Freelance listservs open to all.  As some others have pointed 
out, we journalists try to get meetings and forums open to the press and 
public, so we should set an example.  I think we have to be willing to 
share experiences and tips for anyone to see.  We would be wise to 
refrain from making comments about individuals that we wouldn't want 
them to see.

Mary Knudson

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: awach@friend.ly.net
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 08:52:33 -0400
Subject: Re: privacy

Mary Knudson wrote:  ". . . we journalists try to get meetings and forums
open to the press and public, so we should set an example.  I think we have
to be willing to 
>share experiences and tips for anyone to see.  We would be wise to 
>refrain from making comments about individuals that we wouldn't want 
>them to see."

Alan Wachter responds: Correct.  But what's the alternative for necessary
business information that may be negative?  I've asked questions about
hardware/software, gotten good advice and acted on it, and would be pleased
to share it with anyone who is interested.  But I also need to know if a
publisher or agency isn't paying freelance fees promptly or at all. Some of
us work at home and depend on financial/assignment guidance from experienced
NASW members.  I've been writing and editing for 40 years for corporations
and publishers, but full-time freelancing for only three.  I've been stiffed
more than once and have waited six months to get paid several times. Sharing
philosophies with the world is rewarding and fun.  But we need that other
kind of information too.  If we cannot have a closed forum, do we replant
the telephone tree?

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Cindy Scott Day 
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 11:29:02 -0500
Subject: Re:  privacy

>I favor keeping the NASW-Talk
>amd MASW-Freelance listservs open to all.  As some others have pointed
>out, we journalists try to get meetings and forums open to the press and
>public, so we should set an example.

I echo Mary Knudson.

- -C

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Rick Borchelt 
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 14:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: privacy

>A. Wachter observes: But I also need to know if a
>publisher or agency isn't paying freelance fees promptly or at all. Some of
>us work at home and depend on financial/assignment guidance from experienced
>NASW members.  I've been writing and editing for 40 years for corporations
>and publishers, but full-time freelancing for only three.  I've been stiffed
>more than once and have waited six months to get paid several times. Sharing
>philosophies with the world is rewarding and fun.  But we need that other
>kind of information too.  If we cannot have a closed forum, do we replant
>the telephone tree?

A simple message might say, "I've been negotiating with Acme Corp. over a
job I'm doing for them.  If any of you have had any experience freelancing
for them you'd care to share, please email me privately at xxxxx."

In the time I've been monitoring the freelance conversations, though, I
recall very little such traffic at such a specific level.  Not that it
wouldn't come up in the future , tho, I understand.


Rick Borchelt

**************************************************************************
------------------------------

Message From: Jon Franklin 
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 11:38:52 -0700
Subject: Re: privacy

Mary Knutson wrote:

>. . . we journalists try to get meetings and forums open to the press and 
>public, so we should set an example.  I think we have to be willing to 
>share experiences and tips for anyone to see.  We would be wise to 
>refrain from making comments about individuals that we wouldn't want 
>them to see.

Jon Franklin points out:

Yes.  But this isn't a public meeting.  We don't say that a private company,
for example, has to open its meetings to the public.  Nor do we say that
conversations between me and my writing buddies have to be public.  Is
NASW different in this respect?  That is, are we using public money?
If we are, Mary may be right.  If we aren't, there's no example to set, and
the issue may more involve freedom of assembly.  Maybe someone else is
familiar with freedom of assembly issues; I'm certainly not.

###
**************************************************************************

From: Fred Powledge 
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 10:22:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Freelance privacy


I vote for limiting nasw-freelance, not limiting nasw-talk.

--Fred Powledge
==========================================================================
Fred Powledge                                        fredpowledge@nasw.org
25040 Old Brick Way - Half-Pone Point - Hollywood, Maryland, U.S.A., 20636
Telephone:  1-301-373-5466                      Facsimile:  1-301-373-3788

RELATED LINKS

• Subscribe to an NASW list
• Manage your subscriptions
• A discussion on list privacy